MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This сase is before this court on defendant’s motion to dismiss filed April 22, 1985. This court heard oral argument on the issues addressed in defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s response brief on May 10, 1985. Both pаrties having briefed the issues, this motion is now ripe for ruling.
I.
Defendant contends that venue is improperly laid in the Northern District of Indiana, and that the preferred and proper venue is the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant concedes that under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) 1 venue may lie in the Northern District of Indiana.'
*248 The Indictment in this case charges the defendant with conspiracy to mail and reproduce material involving the sexual exploitation of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252. 2 Count I of the Indictment charges that the materials were mailed by a co-conspirator in the Northern District of Indiana to the defendant in Illinois. The defendant then reproduced the materials and mailed them back to the co-conspirator in Indiana, retaining copies. The Indictment also charges thе defendant with mailing material in Illinois to the co-conspirator in Indiana.
The major thrust of defendant’s argument is, since the alleged activities predominantly took place in Illinоis, then proper and preferred venue lies in Illinois. Both parties cite
United States v. Langford,
In the Langford case, the defendant was charged undеr the predecessor statute of 18 U.S.C. § 2252, which included in its elements the requirement that the materials be obscene. The “obscene” requirement is no longer in the new statute. The case in Langford was brought in the jurisdiction of the “sending” state and not the “receiving” state. The defendant in that case argued that the venue was improper because the community standard to be applied should be that standard found in the “receiving” state and not the standard of the “sending” state. There were three “reeeiving” states and thus, three different “community standards” tо be applied under defendant’s theory, and only one “sending” state. The court in Langford determined that the venue was properly brought in the “sending” state. However, the court did not find that jurisdictiоn in the “sending” state was the preferred venue. Rather, the court specifically held at 1096:
Congress’ decision to allow cases such as the one at bar to be venued in eithеr the sending or receiving jurisdiction demonstrates that § 2252 was intended to protect the inhabitants of the sending jurisdiction from being the situs of the production and distribution of pornographic materials to the same extent that it protects the receiving community from the receipt of those materials. The sending jurisdiction’s interest in assuring that it is not the point of origination of obscene materials, justifies our conclusion that venuing the action in the sending jurisdiction did not violate the defendant’s right to due process. Further, the venuing of the action in the sending jurisdiction forwards the interest in judicial economy by limiting the number of trials and in reality affords the defendant consistent treatment under the law because all of the visual material will not be judgеd separately under the potentially inconsistent standards of each of the receiving jurisdictions.
In this particular case, there are only two states involved in the alleged activity, and the requirement concerning the *249 “obscene” nature of the material is no longer a concern under the current statute. Therefore, this court does not need to concern itself with the application of a particular community standard in determining venue. Even if this court had to consider the same, it appears that the bulk of the mаterials in question originally were sent from Indiana.
Based on the specific language in 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) this case was properly venued in the Northern District of Indiana.
II.
Defendant contends thаt the statute 18 U.S.C. § 2252 is overly broad, difficult or impossible to interpret and impermissibly vague. The defendant contends that the statute, as is, violates the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution.
The predecessor statute was specifically held to have clear language and found not to be constitutionally vague.
United States v. Fogarty,
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently addressed this issue and held that a New York statute very similar to the one now in question was constitutional and that an obscenity standard did not have to be applied to a definable class of material such as child pornography.
New York v. Ferber,
When a definable class of material [child pornography] such as that covered by [the New York statute] beаrs so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of the children engaged in its production, we think the balance of competing interests is clearly struck and that it is permissible to сonsider these materials as without the protection of the first amendment. * * * * * *
[t]he test for child pornography is separate from the obscenity standard enunciated in Miller [v. California,413 U.S. 15 ,93 S.Ct. 2607 ,37 L.Ed.2d 419 ], but may be compared to it for the purpose of clarity. The Miller formulation is adjusted in the following respects: A trier of fact need not find that the material appeals to the рrurient interest of the average person, it is not required that sexual conduct portrayed be done so in a patently offensive manner, and the material at issue need not be considered as a whole. Id. at 764,102 S.Ct. at 3358 .
The Langford court in applying the predecessor statute of § 2252 said:
Ferber makes it clear that Congress could have prohibited the mailing of material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct without including оbscenity as an element of the crime, by simply prohibiting the mailing of “works that visually depict sexual conduct by children below a certain age.” Id. [458 U.S.] at 764,102 S.Ct. at 3358 . However, since Congress did requirе proof of obscenity as an element of § 2252 and the appellant was convicted under the community standards set forth in Miller we review the appellant’s case under Miller’s obscenity guidelines. Langford, at 1093.
This court agrees with the reasoning in the Langford opinion and its application of the Ferber holding to the amended statute 18 U.S.C. § 2252. Since the amendment, this court does not have to apply the Miller test of obscenity to the statute.
As the court in
Fogarty, supra,
found the language of the predecessor statute clear language, this court finds the language of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 as amended clear languаge. In applying the very strong standard to be proven in the deter
*250
mination of the First Amendment over-breadth doctrine violation as fully discussed by the court in
Ferber
when applying the standard set forth in
Broadrick v. Oklahoma,
Defendant also contends that 18 U.S.C. § 2252 violates the Eighth Amendment proscription of cruel and unusual punishment but cites no authority demonstrating the same. It is the duty of the Congress and not the сourts to determine the type of punishment and the amount of fine or sentence to be imposed. The defendant has not shown this court that the Congress acted in a manner which viоlates the Eighth Amendment.
CONCLUSION
This court hereby finds that this case is properly venued in Indiana, and that 18 U.S.C. § 2252 is not constitutionally vague, is not overbroad and does not violate the First, Fifth, Sixth or Eighth Amendments to thе Constitution.
Accordingly, it is the order of this court that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be and is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED.
Notes
. 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) reads as follows:
§ 3237. Offenses begun in one district and completed in another.
(a) Except as other wise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, maybe inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.
Any offense involving the use of the mails, transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States is a continuing offense and, except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Cоngress, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such commerce, mail matter, or imported object or person moves.
. 18 U.S.C. § 2252 reads as follows:
§ 2252. Certin activities relating to mаterial involving the sexual exploitation of minors (a) Any person who—
(1) knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce or mails, for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale, any obscene visual or print medium, if—
(A) the producing of such visual or print medium involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual or print medium depicts such conduct; or
(2) knowingly receives for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale, or knowingly sells or distributes for sale, any obscene visual or print medium that has been transported or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if—
(A) the producing of such visual or print medium involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual or print medium depicts such conduct; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, but, if such person has a prior conviction under this section, such person shall be fined not more than $15,000.00, or imprisoned not less then two years nor more than 15 years, or both. (Added Pub.L. 95-225, § 2(a), Feb. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 7.)